Makes as much sense as any other explanation

Abbott and Costello explain Unemployment! COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America. ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 8.3% COSTELLO: That many people are out of work? ABBOTT: No, that's 16%. COSTELLO: You just said 8.3%. ABBOTT: 8.3% Unemployed. COSTELLO: Right 8.3% out of work. ABBOTT: No, that's 16%. COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed. ABBOTT: No, that's 8.3%... COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 8.3% or 16%? ABBOTT: 8.3% are unemployed. 16% are out of work. COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed. ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed. COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!! ABBOTT: No, you miss my point. COSTELLO: What point? ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair. COSTELLO: To whom? ABBOTT: The unemployed. COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work. ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed. COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment? ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely! COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work? ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 8.3%. Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment, do ya? COSTELLO: That would be frightening. ABBOTT: Absolutely. COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number? ABBOTT: Two ways is correct. COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job? ABBOTT: Correct. COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job? ABBOTT: Bingo. COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work. ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist. COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said! ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a politician.

Easing A Burden For Vets?

Really. That's what the article says.

According to the July/August 2012 AARP bulletin, "the Department of Veterans Affairs is making it easier for vets to provide medical information supporting their disability claims. Veterans' medical care providers can now download any of 71 forms for specific conditions..."

WaitWhat? 71 forms? Good grief! I supposed allowing the forms to be downloaded is an easing, but really... 71? Checking out a few of them, they seem to run 4 to 8 pages each, and ask extremely detailed questions. They remind me of the questions asked by outsourced tech support who really have no clue what's going on, but want you to go away.

For arthritis for example, does the veteran have pain? Uh, no, we thought we'd tie up the medical system with stupid visits.  This question and checkbox is followed by "If yes, indicate affected joints (check all that apply):" and a detailed list of the joints available to be arthritic, incl a list for each of the left and right sides. This is followed by a substantial box "For all checked joints, describe involvement (brief summary). Also complete a questionnaire for each affected joint, if indicated."

The next question is "does the veteran have any limitation of joint movement attributable to this arthritic condition?" See sarcasm above. Again we have "If yes..." and a list of boxes to be checked for "all that apply" and a substantial box "For all checked joints, describe limitation of movement (brief summary). Also complete a questionnaire for each affected joint, if indicated."

This goes on for 5 pages,  and includes sections for "systemic involvement other than joints", "incapacitating and non-incapacitating exacerbations", "other pertinent findings, complications, conditions, signs and/or symptoms", "assistive devices", "diagnostic testing" and lots more. For each and every question, there is a box for details, and in some cases a requirement for additional questionnaires to be filled out.

Looking at all this, I realized the problem is not getting care to vets, or getting vets in to see a doctor. It's processing the damned paperwork.

If you want to see the list, go here: Disability Benefit Questionaire.

Why yes, you can video police

From this article: U.S. Department of Justice Slaps Baltimore Police Over Right to Record Issue

"On Monday, the Department of Justice slapped the Baltimore Police Department with another letter, condemning it for writing such a vague general order and for allowing the harassment to continue.

"It is a very impressive read. Eleven pages of case citations and Constitutional clarifications. One of the most solid efforts from the federal government in protecting the rights of citizens to record police."

From the Letter from the U.S. Attorney General comes these tidbits, as quoted in the article above:

No individual is required to display 'press credentials' in order to exercise his/her right to observe, photograph, or video record police activity taking place in an area accessible to, or within view of, the general public.

And this:

In addition, policies should prohibit more subtle actions that may nonetheless infringe upon individuals’ First Amendment rights. Officers should be advised not to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an individual from recording police officer enforcement activities or intentionally block or obstruct cameras or recording devices.

The millstones of the gods grind slowly
but they grind exceeding fine.

Anarchists?

The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn’t; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists.
— G. K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday

When there is fear, there is tyranny

Found on a survivalist blog:
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Really?
When the government fears the people, there is tyranny. DHS/TSA for example.

Tyranny comes when there is fear in a relationship. Liberty comes when both sides have a clear understanding of each other, and agree to compromises necessary. Tyranny comes from fear, as one side, either the government or the people, tries to bludgeon the other side into submission.


The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
And the vigilance must also include a mirror.